So if one were to use a longbow and the feat Far Shot, one should be able to hit targets at a long distance. For every range increment beyond you'll get a -2 to attack or -1 if using Far Shot.
A bow can have up to 10 times its range increment. Let's take 1000ft. With the mentioned feat that should be a -10 penalty. Doable you would say.
Now regarding perception at those distances. The dc to see someone who isn't using stealth is 0. For every 10ft distance from you the dc will increase with +1.
So a 1000ft would be a dc 100 perception. That would be nigh impossible.
So what am I missing here? They give you rules to attack at such distances and even make it quite feasible to hit something but make it practically impossible to see the target to attack it.
If I'm missing something then please tell me and if I'm correct then give me some solutions.
Also a friend of mine mentioned that things like scrying should allow it as they function like you're there but I'm not sure that's accurate.
Let me know! Thanks!
Some rules don't work when taken to an extreme.
For example, no one can see the sun in the sky (or any of the stars for that matter). As it's millions of miles away from Golarion.
Ultimately you end up with the problem that it's improper to apply perception rules under certain conditions, such as someone walking across an open field 1000ft away not trying to hide.
Sometimes the rules just don't work.
Scrying wouldn't help because it only lets you see a small area around the target. You need to know where the target is in relation to yourself and how far away they are in order to accurately fire the a weapon at someone.
Sample DCs
3: Notice a visible creature 30' away is 6 (base 0 +1/10'). Your average goblin will notice a PC 30' away on a roll of 4 or higher.
5: Notice a visible creature standing on the other side of a door.
10: Notice a visible creature on the other side of a 1' thick wall.
18: Notice that the food in the next room has spoiled (5 + 10/1' wall + 1/10'). DC drops to 13 if you're near a door.
30: Find an arrow trap while sleeping.
31: Find an arrow trap at the end of the next room, a 60' long corridor, without first opening the door leading into said corridor.
The table you're referencing is prefaced by
The following table gives a number of guidelines.
I would consider that improper use of perception, and would rely on a GM's judgement heavily when dealing with long-distance spotting. Otherwise, your DC to see a creature 1000ft away would be the same DC as hearing the conversation between a duo of creatures 1000ft away.
I asked similar questions when trying to make an Arcane Archer. Don't recall if I ever got a decent answer... At the very least, it was determined that an army or Gargantuan creature was fairly easily spotted 1000ft, for the purpose of launching an arrow imbued with fireball, even if it would be difficult to visibly notice every detail of the square I was targeting.
Well it's obvious to me that there seems to be a flaw regarding this.
But regarding using other means like magic to spot a target, would that be plausible? Because I agree with Claxon regarding that.
Also, if it is a giant or any other really big creature, are there no rules to lower this perception DC?
There are rules, yes. It's called their penalty to stealth, generally. It's still nowhere near enough to offset the use of perception at such great distances. You could easily feasibly see a figure towering well over the height of the tallest trees across this (admittedly large) field. But, perception would tell you diddly squat unless you beat a DC in the higher 50s or 60s in the best of conditions...
It's a neat idea. Sadly, I doubt it can actually be applied to any given pathfinder game, and it must be said that it is indeed a houserule; You're throwing in 'real' math where pathfinder rules already clearly exist. It's also inapplicable to any other scenario requiring perception; You naturally can't use the same formula to notice finer details of, listen to, or smell a creature a listed distance away.
I'm curious as to what would happen if you plugged in numbers for a celestial body like the moon, or a cruising altitude passenger plane, though. According to Pathfinder rules, the moon is impossible to see. (Something like -8 million to the DC due to size, but over +130 million for distance)...
As an alternative system that's somewhat more closely aligned to the rules, One thing you could propose is that the distance modifier is simply not applicable for noticing a perfectly visible creature; It will always be DC 0. Instead, save that modifier for noticing particular features or visible details of that creature or using other senses, like sound or scent. Similarly for objects, let that modifier be for noticing particular details within an observed 5-foot square.
The other alternative is to just outright fudge the numbers as a GM by adding your own ludicrously large modifiers, Or in other words, just go by feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OMG! I just realized that in Pathfinder no one can smell the Sun!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OMG! I just realized that in Pathfinder no one can smell the Sun!
If you're smelling the sun, please make a Craft(alchemy) check to know what the hell was in your last drink...
Except your math doesn't work because size categories doesn't extend beyond colossal and neither do their the bonuses or penalties for being found. Sure you can extrapolate, and I'm not suggesting you shouldn't allow people to spot the moon, but you also have to be aware you're just making stuff up because it suits you.
Also, size categories are not twice as large as their previous ones.
medium is 5ft
large is 10ft
huge is 15ft
gargantuan is 20ft
colossal is 30ft
Sorry. the 'real' math thing was not supposed to be some sort of quip or jab. I only meant that out-of-game physics, chemistry, biology, or mathematics tend not to apply. When there are written, over-simplified rules in the tabletop RPG, leave your STEM fields at the door. Drinking a hearty dose of mercury can be a DC20 poison. Acids, bases, and virtually any other reactive compound are all considered 'acids' (as are poisons and venoms, technically, yet the rules actually cover that). Skill checks can enable a bat to fly through a windstorm completely unhampered.
In this case, it is a houserule because you're taking an intermediate step between 'determining distance/size' and 'The final DC' that is not included in the core rulebook. It's not a GM's judgement of increasing or decreasing the DC with a special modifier; You're using a new calculation to begin with, and modifying rules already in place.
Though I agree, and it's clear, that perception will often require the GM's involvement and judgement to keep things going smoothly. Your method is not a bad one at all for estimating difficulty class at moderate distances. (It would also allow one with a ludicrously good perception check, like a fully grown dragon, to spot things we'd need a telescope to find.)
Speaking of telescopes, spyglasses are also terribly useless when it comes to long distance perception. Wow, seeing a person 1000ft away is now DC50 instead of 100.... But at the least, it'd allow the average person to know there's a freakin' moon in the sky according to your post. =P
40 feet -> 1 DC
80 feet -> 5 DC
160 feet -> 9 DC
320 feet -> 13 DC
640 feet -> 17 DC
1280 feet -> 21 DC
2560 feet -> 25 DC
5120 feet -> 29 DC
What an outstanding chart. I am incorporating the principal into my home games right away.
If I could suggest a more game-friendly version however
40 feet -> +1 DC
60 feet -> +2 DC
80 feet -> +3 DC
100 feet -> +4 DC
120 feet -> +5 DC
250 feet -> +10 DC
500 feet -> +15 DC
0.25 mile -> +20 DC
0.5 mile -> +25 DC
1 mile -> +30 DC
This makes the shorter distances a little more granular and makes the further distances a little more relatable to the average person.
Edit: I think I want to change ranged weapon rules in my game to reflect these distances as negative modifiers. That will require a bit more work (like reclassifying ranged weapons by range types rather than range increments. [Thrown, Short, Long, Siege off the top of my head.] Which set a hard cap on range. Maybe point blank shot removes or mitigates the lower penalties. I really like combining charts for multiple uses.
For example, no one can see the sun in the sky
I think this is a miss-interpretation of the rule (if I may). The perception check gives you two pieces of information. (1) that a thing is there, AND (2) precisely what 5 foot squares it occupies.
It specifically does NOT let you see an object. Ie, you can make a perception check against an invisible foe. If you succeed you are made aware of their presence and know exactly what space they occupy. But you don't get to see them. They still get a full cover bonus.
Conversely, seeing an object (like the sun) does not mean you can precisely know its location down the exact 5 foot cubes (in this case) that it occupies. Knowing exactly the space it takes up would be a huge and quite impossible check. But that doesn't preclude you from being able to see it. Since we already know that isn't covered by perception anyway.
There's no need to re-imagine attack rolls, I think. It's clear to see where Pathfinder's rules break down in terms of perception vs. long distance objects- but Attack rolls have traditionally worked, even at range. Rules wise (And this is a thread posted in the rules forum), attack rolls function adequately in this situation.
An answer regarding long distance perception rolls would suffice to rule whether something has total concealment towards the attacker, and whether it's possible to target a particular square at distance.
I used the moon example instead of the sun hoping to avoid the whole light-source thing, but I suppose enough people are going to argue there's little difference.
Unfortunately, the way eyes work is not that applicable in pathfinder. I started a thread a long, long while back with regards to Ebon Eyes, the spellblight. It creates a magical film over each of your eyes that inverts light and darkness Long story short, it was determined that sunglasses worn over ebon eyes would not function to allow the character to see during the day, contrary to all intuition or logic suggesting otherwise. It was pretty convincing at that point that you're only ever going to get away with exactly what the rules say, or the GM's houserules, when no mechanics exist in-game to cover what you want. Science is held at arm's length.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules for perception:
Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is.
Emphasis mine. The context with which to read the perception rules isn't 'to notice anything, anytime, anywhere'. It is vs opposed stealth, or to notice fine details, or things that were intentionally hidden (opposed sleight of hand, etc).
E.g, one misapplication of perception is to notice the sun - which is millions of miles away so has a supposed DC in the billions. But the sun is not a fine detail in the environment, and it is not using stealth.
Is the opponent using stealth? If yes, check against their stealth roll with appropriate distance modifiers, etc.
Is the opponent a fine detail in the environment? Probably not, so if they aren't stealthing, no perception check needed to notice them. You can spot them, but may not be able to read the words on their shirt that say "I'm a good chef".
Of course with environment, a GM will need to a do a lot of adjudication. Are you in Kansas? Then you can probably see them a long ways off. Are you in the rocky mountains? Then terrain might block view of them 20' away.
So if one were to use a longbow and the feat Far Shot, one should be able to hit targets at a long distance. For every range increment beyond you'll get a -2 to attack or -1 if using Far Shot.
A bow can have up to 10 times its range increment. Let's take 1000ft. With the mentioned feat that should be a -10 penalty. Doable you would say.
Now regarding perception at those distances. The dc to see someone who isn't using stealth is 0. For every 10ft distance from you the dc will increase with +1.
So a 1000ft would be a dc 100 perception. That would be nigh impossible.
Keep in mind archery combat at such extreme distances was not historically one archer taking shots at one target. It would be a whole unit of archers shooting arrows at a mass group of people and relying on odds that they'd hit a bunch of folks in the opposing crowd.
This not something that simulates well on the individual tatical scale but on the mass combat scale.
Also in most outdoor situations, you generally won't have a 1000 feet of clear siting vision unless the encounnter is taking place inside a giant empty cube.